I actually didn't, which was the main reason I replied.

It's fairly common to see people arguing as though a thing is either risky or not risky, without any sense of context.

So... we're not even pretending to post actual shirts now?

At least make a half-assed effort and upload it to one of those print-your-tee websites, and post a screencap of that.

This meme is old enough that the sandwich on the right now looks like the one on the left!

I don't vape, except occasional cannabis-based products which I understand use a different solvent, so I'll have to take your word on that. But there's a difference between the presence of sweetness vs sweet flavors that typically (or more to the point are designed to) appeal more to younger people. Whether or not those flavors still appeal to adults is kinda moot--as it's been pointed out already, lots of things that appeal greatly to kids still appeal to adults.

The crux of it is if vape makers are generating flavored vapes to try and appeal to younger buyers (which carries a massive financial incentive), I think most people would agree that's not ok. Whether banning those flavors is the right answer I guess would be a matter for study and debate.

This is just a weird feeling thread to be honest, since Lemmy tends to skew massively cynical about being marketed to, especially by billion dollar corps, but the vibe I'm getting here is skepticism that those billion dollar vape manufacturers might be exploiting some simple psychology to get kids hooked early.

And for what it's worth, I'm sure liquor manufacturers do the same thing to some degree, but it's kind of a different ball game since you don't need to get people addicted to alcohol young in order to have them continue to drink as an adult, and most adults who drink are not physically addicted, as with nicotine. Maybe coffee would be a better comparison...

It's less a "think of the kids" issue and more that the vast majority of smokers and vapers start as teens / young adults so there is a huge incentive to get them started and hooked early. It would just be naiive to think cig and vape makers don't know this and take advantage.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine a strawberry flavored cigarette was released tomorrow. It would be so transparent the maker would be absolutely crucified the moment it hit shelves.

All that said, legislation should be based on data and solid studies, not just gut feeling and common sense. I could be wrong here, but the profit motive to get people hooked on addictive products early is just too strong to not look verrrry suspect.

Yeah, underage drinking is also a big problem, but it's also not one I expect vape or cigarette manufacturers to have much sway over.

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be a gotcha? Can we not look at one problem without simultaneously solving all problems?

He has a name.... smdh

Bro, you're describing an independant.

Centrism is, by definition, staking your position as the middle between two (or more I suppose) defined positions. The reason it's such a ridiculed stance is that it's not based on any sort of principled viewpoints or analysis of the issues, and as one position shifts to extremism, the self-defined centrists follow happily along.

Just because you frame two positions as dichotomies does not mean that someone who agrees with parts of both is a centrist. It could mean they are false dichotomies (i.e. pro-riot vs pro-police) or they are positions where nuance is appropriate. Having a nuanced view is NOT being a centrist, unless the depth of your nuance is "Person A wants all of the things, and Person B wants none of the things, therefore the clear and correct answer is to have SOME of the things". Especially when the thing is something like systematic racism or corruption.

The fact that US politics is so polarized that we're constantly conditioned and primed to lump our positions into one of two (often incoherent) camps explains why centrism happens, but it's not a defense of centrism.

Random internet commenter status: owned!

Don't forget... "you'll look yummy in these new Chubettes!" 🤮

Slippery slope argument aside, what does having information about the consequences of your choice have to do with how personal the choice is?

I'd wager most people who are thinking about having a kid have not thought much about the impacts outside of their own personal life, or only about the potential positive impacts. Fact is the world really doesn't really need more people, and if you're serious about making a better future for humanity, you'd at least consider the impacts of having more than a couple kids.

And just to head off any semantic argument, when I say the world doesn't need more people, I'm saying 8 billion is plenty of humans, not that we should just stop reproducing.

What are you on about?? It takes a little over 2 kids per child-producing couple just to sustain the population flat. Does that sound dystopian to you? Sounds like the average suburban family to me.

Who exactly are we saving the planet FOR?

Uhhhh... those hundreds of millions of kids born each year, exploding population or not, are the ones we are saving the planet for.